A Reply to Andrew Sullivan
A note sent me to Andrew Sullivan’s site, where he’s asking for a correction on my Newsweek-Abu Ghraib comparison.
[ED NOTE: for some reason the link to Sullivan’s site didn’t make it into this post when I first published it. I’ve added the link in the Update at the end.]
Sullivan appears to miss the point of my original post. The Abu Ghraib debacle-Newsweek fiasco comparison rests on this: Newsweek failed to understand the global information grid– they were operating on a “print” template. Rumsfeld thought the England and other abuse photos were on Kodak paper; the Abu Ghraib abuse photos were on pixels. Rumsfeld didn’t understand the “information consequences” of Abu Ghraib photos, and how easily they are reproduced on the Internet. Newsweek didn’t understand the information consequences of its report, either, in a world where gossip moves at the speed of light. Rumsfeld and Newsweek were both handling terrible allegations with a restricted view of the audience (a 1970s, US-oriented template) and a poor appreciation of the allegations’ impact.
Here’s what I wrote:
The global dissemination of Lynndie England’s dog leash photos, etc., (and magnification of the abuse by anti-American critics) made Abu Ghraib the political and historical scar it is. The US soldiers committed a crime, but information technology made the crime an international fiasco. When evaluating early investigations into Abu Ghraib Don Rumsfeld and his cohort of advisers –techno whizzes that they supposedly are– were operating with a 1970s information template.To Don Rumsfeld “pictures” meant a snapshot on a piece of paper marked “Kodak”– he didn’t realize his 20-year-old troops take photos with electronic cameras and “print” them in digital pixels. Anyone with teenagers or a ten year-old with a photo-cell phone knows your navel can be an international sensation in two minutes.
To a degree Newsweek is operating on a “paper template” where the editors and reporters believe the story they “print” shows up in mailboxes or on a magazine rack. In this “template” a phony press allegation remains “local” or US-bound. But there is no “over there” in our world, not anymore. We live in a world where everyone is – in terms of information– next door. Technological compression is the term I coined to describe the situation. Some slip-ups merely damage reputations– Dan Rather and Eason Jordan come to mind. World War Two vets know “loose lips sink ships.” Today, loose (computer) disks can sink ships, but loosey-goosey allegations can lead to riot and death.
Instead, Sullivan focuses on the issue of what we might call “comparative level of murder.” (Our point of disagreement is on what constitutes torture.) Hmm–though I wrote that Abu Ghraib is about felony abuse — a criminal and moral scar, to make it explicit– that wasn’t my point of comparison. But let’s take a look at that. No doubt both Sullivan and Bay are against murder, and no doubt Sullivan and Bay are both angry about Abu Ghraib. I may be angrier than he is, but we’ll agree that rating levels of outrage is highly subjective. Graner, England, which of them committed murder? The Abu Ghraib scandal is about prisoner abuse– felony, criminal abuse, but not murder and not torture. I’ve agreed with several of Sullivan’s post on the wrong’s committed by the MPs and guards at Abu Ghraib, but I haven’t seen a murder charge in the lot. Here’s a SanFrancisco Chronicle list of Iraqis and Afghanis who have died in US custody. There are several US troops charged with manslaughter, but I don’t see manslaughter or murder charges at Abu Ghraib. Yes, prisoners have died at Abu Ghraib — that place is hideous, like Ralph Peters I think we should have blown it up in May 2003– but I don’t see any murder charges on the list. To be fair, Isikoff isn’t charged with murder, either, but I’ve compared Isikoff’s assessment of his story’s impact to Rumsfeld’s assessment of the damage wrought by the crimes at Abu Ghraib. I know there are folks at the DailyKos who want to charge Rumsfeld with murder and it seems there are several commenters who think Isikoff has commited murder.
There is this:
Manadel al-Jamadi, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Nov. 4, 2003. Died during interrogation. Several Navy SEALs charged; and two CIA personnel under investigation.
That’s suspicious. Is there an update on this particular investigation?
I agree that the possibility of “religiously-intolerant” abuse is a source of emotional ignition in the Islamic world. [ADDITION: Sullivan needs to add a fourth component to his analysis of what happened in the NEwsweek fiasco– the possibility of Al Qaeda operatives waiting to take advantage of an allegation like the Koran desecration. See UPDATE 3 in the original post.* ] Sullivan insists that Abu Ghraib’s felony abuse amounts to torture. I think that “lowers the bar” on the definition of torture– and criminal trial is the place to test that difference of opinion. Sullivan needs to re-read what I wrote — and consider updating his post.
UPDATE: Seems the link to Sullivan’s site didn’t make it into the post– and a couple of sentences were missing, including a quote of Sullivan’s three interacting factors operating in the Newsweek scandal. . Here’s the link. Glenn Reynolds and I are hysterics.
And since I’m back online, here are Sullivan’s three factors:
Three factors interacted here: media error/bias, Islamist paranoia, and a past and possibly current policy of religiously-intolerant torture. No one comes out looking good…
And here’s the quote from Update 3 of the original post. It doesn’t have its own unique link.
“I will bet that Al Qaeda has sympathizers in Afghanistan and Pakistan who are cued to react to Western news reports that “insult Islam” – particularly reports involving US troops. The “fifth-columnist” throws the first stone. If he can get a couple of bored teenage boys to throw a second and third stone he’s done his job. It doesn’t always result in a riot but if a reporter’s on the scene, Al Qaeda gets another “the Muslim street is angry” story. I offer this as a scenario, not a proven fact, but it is a common ploy.”
UPDATE 2: Comment 2 states it well and I’ll quote it here:
My problems with these comparisons are largely that the idea of “torture” has taken on such an expanded definition (including “religious and cultural” abuses) that the world is becoming desensitized to real torture and abuse…
Thanks for the comment. Comments 5 and 6 are interesting. Perhaps Sullivan’s world view is shaped as Comment 6 suggests. Everyone has a crusading streak, about some issue or some one. I have two. I’m a big time developmental aid advocate, particularly small scale development that helps people help temselves and leads to self-empowerment . Focus on specific, hard core Third World cases tempers my crusading zeal (hey, get a dose of reality). I know the roots of this zeal, too– my upbringing and my Christianity. The other crusade also has a justice angle: fair treatment for US soldiers and the US military in general– in that order, troops first, organization second. Military service is a burden –clearly I loved what I did as a soldier, I love the people I served with– but folks, it is a burden. Democracies must have hyper-competent militaries manned by multi-talented personnel. But– I guarantee you I would rather be going to girls basketball games and watching the Astros than sitting in a tank. Living in this screwy, broken world, however, often means you have to sit in a tank, or pull guard duty, or race down Route Irish, or attack Fallujah. (Or, go to Afghanistan and dig sewers while terrorists are throwing riots.) And if you don’t do it, someone else must. My personal crusade is for the “someone else” who’s done it. It takes a helathy, prepared, professional organization for the troops to do the job right. Let folks have their crusades as long as they disclose them.
UPDATE 2: Okay, I have to do this again. This site has comment rules. No cursing. No allegations without substantiation (a plea for civility). This means no name-calling. I know some name-calling is an attempt at humor, but so often the humor fails and falls well short of a laugh. See Update 2 to my original Newsweek post for further guidance. Yes, I will delete your post; no, it’s not a personal attack by me on the commenter. Yes, it is my decision and sure, it’s censorship of a sort, on a personal website.
I am a bit amazed. Until Sunday evening I had only deleted four comments for breaking the simple house rules. (I have deleted a few others that were really advertisements for the commenter and not on topic.) Since Sunday night five more have hit the trash. That’s not a lot of deletion, given the number of comment this site gets– I have a wide, gray line. But — common sense should guide comments, as well as respect for others. No racial epithets, no snide attacks on Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews. Taoists, etc, no gay bashing, no misogyny, no misanthropy — (I know, a wise guy will say “Hey, what does that leave us?”). There are places on the Internet that thrive on this drivia, so take it there. And please, no accusations of Victorianism. Read a couple of my novels if you want to hear drill sergeant lingo un-Bowdlerized. I appreciate posts that have content. Debate and discussion are a goal– but so is civility.
I just read Comment 10– now that’s an acceptable shot. Has a touch of Restoration comedy. If someone fired that at me, I’d laugh. What’s unacceptable? Go read the rants at the DailyKos or Democratic Underground. They remind me of subway graffiti, or the obscenities junior high school vandals spray paint on a rival school’s brick walls. I’m not just picking on the Left– there’s vicious stuff out there from all sides.
UPDATE 3: A fine post on Newsweek at Winds of Change. Includes a link to Don Sensing’s thoughts on how DOD helped blow this story. Don’s right, as usual. Here’s a direct link to his essay. Note Don Sensing’s comment rules, too.
Here are Sensing’s rules:
A. No - means no - profanity!
B. No personal attacks on me or any other commenter or author.
C. No commercial commenting, but links to your own blog site or relevant other web pages are fine.
D. I rarely answer comments - I just don’t have the time - and when I do it is on a whim, so if you leave a comment challenging or commending my post, thank you, but don’t get bent when I appear to take no notice.
E. Please do not email me something you left in a comment - Wordpress emails me every comment so I do see it.
F. If you include more than two links in your comment, Wordpress automatically slides it into the “awaiting moderation” file. Eventually I will notice but probably not quickly.
G. Remember Rule No. 6!
My auto editor blocks a comment with more than three links.
UPDATE 4: Just read Sullivan’s response. He doesn’t address my initial comparison. The way he frames the issue is ancilliary to my original point, but I did him the courtesy of exploring his frame. He responds with a headline claiming “revision.” That’s dismaying. His latest post so narrows the discussion that it distorts my original post as well. Fortunately the Internet puts it all out there for folks to see. He does conclude by noting the Abu Ghraib convictions are for prisoner abuse– and I’m the one who said legal procedures were the route to weigh definitions of torture . Do I take that as a concession? Nope– his angry tone indicates he disagrees with the charges and convictions.
And just read Comment 17. I used to read Sullivan’s “Dish” work regularly, but during my military tour in Iraq I didn’t have much time for the Internet –at least non-classified Internet cruising. I did write Glenn Reynolds a long letter about Noonan/Sullivan/Kaus’ brief “we’re fatigued by the war” meme– and Glenn posted it. When I got back last September I returned to Powerline, Instapundit, etc., but Sullivan became a weekly visit, for reasons similar to Comment 17. FWIW, I’m a big fan of TalkLeft, and check out a range of opinion sites on a daily basis. Yes, I at least scan Wonkette– cattiness can be funny.
At the pain of being uninformed, I think the initial instinct when one hears the comparison between the 2 is to seize on Abu Gharib being abhorrent that ‘we the good guys’ can do anything that would impugn our integrity. I think your comparison holds on the grounds that the lack of foresight or thinking in a digital age makes these problems worse. I don’t know if you are drawing this conclusion but it seems that I would agree with you. It is one thing to have an opinion when only American born people are reading and debating the news, but it is whole ‘nother thing to believe for an instant the subject won’t have implications on an international scale. It is not enough to say we didn’t know or we didn’t think that far in advance. The pictures and/or rumors should be viewed beyong the end of America’s borders. Since we are a democracy and know the world is watching us, when we state what believe or think we should keep in mind someone’s life might be weighed in the balance. I saw your appearance on MSNBC and made me visit your blog for the first time today. Even if I didn’t fully understand what your complete meaning was in the 20 seconds you had without being interrupted, I can say you said enough to make me want to come and read for myself. I can’t say I agree 100% with you, but it is nice to hear/read something coming from someone who is informed and knows what they are talking about.
Comment by Genna — 5/16/2005 @ 10:45 pm
My problems with these comparisons are largely that the idea of “torture” has taken on such an expanded definition (including “religious and cultural” abuses) that the world is becoming desensitized to real torture and abuse. I read the points you made about “Vietnam” and “Watergate”. I think sometimes that the beaucrats and politicos that continue to “leak” this information are hoping to be the next “deep throat”. I think the press, while giving some passes to JFK, got their ideas on reporting, not from the Vietnam era, but from WWII. If you think about it, the reports of atrocities in Nazi Germany were treated almost like rumors and rarely reported. I always remember the videos of the common German villagers who were forced to walk through the camps and help bury the dead. Many of them always seemed to have shocked looks on their faces as if they didn’t “know”. Since then, it seems that the taint of the Nazis and the propaganda they used to cover their evil activities, had drifted across the ocean and the fear of being the tool to cover these kinds of activities by government has infiltrated to the very deepest psyche of journalism. It did seem that Korea was the beginning of media organizatioins “stepping out” and begin reporting “objectively”. It’s here that they began to suspect that our government would lie to us too and do some really horrible things. Not that I think people in government wouldn’t lie to cover their butts, but I do wonder if they think that we could be led as easily as the people of Nazi Germany? Some additional thoughts on “investigative” reporting. As I pointed out in my own post on the subject, if Newsweek had simply compared the information about “over flowing toilets” to exposes they’ve done in the past on US prison systems then they would have known, without Gen. Myers explanation, what that was about and would have questioned themselves before printing. Prisoners in every state prison and county jail have used these techniques, stuffing everything from clothing to bedding to paper or anything else they can get their hands on, in the toilet and causing it to overflow in order to “stage protests” when privileges are taken away; force extraction in order to get into a fight with the guards (for the same reasons); force extraction in order to be placed in solitary confinement (which is what normally happens) to get the only protection they can from other prisoners threatening to harm them; to force extraction and use it as a cover so that they can pass information to guards or interrogators/prosecutors in exchange for favors and privileges (forced extraction insures that the other inmates do not become suspicious and the informant can go back into the prison population to continue obtaining info). I can’t believe these guys, specifically the editors that must have edited at least ONE US prison story, really fell for that “flushing the Koran” down the toilet. Pretty sad when you think about it.
Comment by kat-missouri — 5/17/2005 @ 1:24 am
My comment has to do with reading over the last several pieces on this story, and I think that what is really awful is the way that the Muslim world is reacting to something that should be relatively minor. Where is the criticism of how over the top waxed they are getting over this? Newsweek made a mistake, but the reaction is ridiculous. It shows how insane the Muslim culture is. Why are we letting ourselves be held hostage to this culture? Most of the criticism shohld be directed at them.
Comment by napablogger — 5/17/2005 @ 3:16 am
The fact is that if it were’t for a Republican in the Whitehouse vigorously pursuing the terrorists the liberasl wouldn’t give two hoots for Koran desecration, abuse of Muslim prisoners, et al.This kind of cr*p has been going on int he world for centuries at the hands of so-called leaders of Islamic nations and the left never cared. This has nothing to do with prisoner abuse or Koran desecration — it has everything to do with hatred of George Bush, hatred of the US military and hatred of America.
Comment by John Steele — 5/17/2005 @ 7:03 am
Sullivan has become a whining self-parody, obsessing about detained Saddam loyalists and ‘jihadists’ who had panties put on their heads. While such “prisoner abuse” is truly an “outrage,” Daniel Pearl, Paul Johnson, Nicholas Berg, and Fabrizio Quattrochi could not be reached for comment.
Comment by Observer — 5/17/2005 @ 7:13 am
You are really missing Sullivan’s big point in all of this. The Bush Administration opposes gay marriage ergo Bush delando est. Anything that contributes to that is good — even if it is fairy-tales about prisoner abuse in Gitmo. Get with the program Austin — it’s About Gay Marriage. (As is anything with Sullivan today.)
Comment by Mark L. — 5/17/2005 @ 7:17 am
Newsweek’s Whitaker Retracts Under Pressure From the Chicago Trib: “Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,” said editor Mark Whitaker. Ace coins “Al-Newsweek“:…
Trackback by Myopic Zeal — 5/17/2005 @ 7:20 am
Austin baby, both stories were created by the Left to make our military look bad and weaken the U.S. Abu Grahib was pounded by the Left (54 major stories in the NYT). I’m reminded of some research I did in college that led me through the newspapers of 1947 through 1949. The Soviet planted story after story on every subject under the sun. These stories were parroted by the many communist writers (and hard core Left writers) who did their best to see everything made it to the MSM of the day. Then the media followed up on the few “stories” that had “traction.” That’s still the game. The Soviets were as good as Hollywood in generating “fresh gossip.”
Comment by Howard Veit — 5/17/2005 @ 7:23 am
One similarity I see between the two is that in both cases MSM took a matter that was already under investigation and blew it up into a major international story. In neither case was there evidence that the matter was being ignored or swept under the rug. There is no way anyone can ever convince me that neither the authors nor the editors understood the logical effects of both stories upon the “Arab street” or failed to appreciate the PR value for the enemy. As such, there is a distinct difference between treating it as a local police blotter story, which it really was, than as a Watergate-type of exposé, which it clearly wasn’t as there was no cover-up in progress.
Comment by submandave — 5/17/2005 @ 10:04 am
Andrew Sullivan is a classic case of a man ALWAYS thinking with the wrong head.
Comment by Nahanni — 5/17/2005 @ 10:04 am
Thanks, Mark L. (comment #6) Your description of Andrew Sullivan is spot-on. He has turned into a shrill, one-issue self-parody.
Comment by williamP — 5/17/2005 @ 10:10 am
Andrew is the biggest FOOL on the internet since Al Gore gave this great Medium. He wines and cries. He has been left quoting DailyKos Posters for validation of his Bush Hating rants. Andrew is nothing but a Left-Wing radical.
Comment by Dave J — 5/17/2005 @ 10:16 am
I find your comment about your passion for developmental aid interesting. I work for USAID in Afghanistan and have seen interesting success and abysmal failures (that I guess is the nature of the beast with developmental aid) - our success there has, in my opinion, only been due to our strong linkages with the military and dealing with the Government and people of Afghanistan from a position of strength/credibility due to our heavy investment of men and material of the military in the GWOT there. USAID could be rightly figured to have failed in many countries globally over the last 30+ years, but in Afghanistan we seem to have got it somewhat right (or at least directionally right) - same could be said for Iraq. Please expand your view on this as you have the chance - I’m in to it for the same reasons you mention - upbringing and Christianity - not because I am some liberal do-gooder, which I most certainly am not!
Comment by Kyle N — 5/17/2005 @ 10:26 am
I think that some of your commentors give Newsweek too much credit. Newsweek did not anticipate the rioting and outrage expressed in the Moslem world. If they had anticipated that outrage, then they would have run the article as the cover story. There may have been a number of reasons that they should have anticipated the Moslem reaction, but they did not. Part of this failure is that reporter have a blind spot when it comes to religions. “Piss Christ” never struck them as something rational people would be upset about. The Koran in the toilet probably hit them in the same light.
Comment by Skip London — 5/17/2005 @ 10:53 am
Ok. I’m confused. Sullivan says that “U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death.” Just how did that one get under everyone’s radar? Since he doesn’t mention any sources for this (I suppose we should all instantly recognize the reference) there’s no way to know. Sullivan also references photos of corpses “found there” (at Abu Ghraib), as evidence of torture by Americans at the prison. But again, no link. Does anyone know what he’s talking about? Where did he get this stuff from?
Comment by Casey Tompkins — 5/17/2005 @ 12:33 pm
Casey, based on his recent posts, I’d say he gets his stuff from Kos. He’s singled out Susan Hu, but surely to have read her work he’s also glanced at others. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but that may be one reason he’s reluctant to cite.
Comment by Bruce Chang — 5/17/2005 @ 2:21 pm
I went by Sullivan’s site yesterday by random and came across this thread myself. It’s just so damn sad. I used to really like Andy’s site, but then one day —you all know when— he just lost it. I completely support gay marriage but I simply couldn’t stomach Sullivan’s inane histrionics on the subject and his apparent conclusion that anyone who dissented from his position was a de facto bigot. Subsequently his blog turned into a pathetic rationalization for endorsing Kerry and when the endorsement finally came he feigned surprise and fooled no one. That was the moment I left. I still visit every now and again and always regret it. Last time he was discussing how sad it was that Pope John Paul clung to life in such a wretched condition and argued that the truly Christian thing for him to do would be to just end it already. So damn sad…
Comment by Jason — 5/17/2005 @ 2:42 pm
In reply to comment #14: Maybe Newsweek didn’t expect riots because what they reported wasn’t new; stories of Koran abuse have been reported several times in the past. Maybe Newsweek didn’t expect riots because photographic evidence of abuse has been seen in the past. Maybe Newsweek thought that if the acknowledged use of fake menstral blood didnt’ cause riots, this wouldn’t. Maybe Newsweek thought that since the Pentagon didn’t object to the passage when it was given to them to review prior to publication everything was okay. Finally, maybe Newsweek didn’t think that it’s story would cause riots for the same reason that the Pentagon’s top U.S. military officer, General Richard Myers, and the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Carl Eichenberry, said, AS REPORTED BY VOA (is that also “Liberal MSM”?), disagree with the reports that protests were caused by anger over the alleged Koran incident: “”It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine” Ya think?
Comment by Hank — 5/17/2005 @ 4:02 pm
Per comment #17, An apt analysis. However, we mustn’t forget the increasing penchant for inserting the obligatory three paragraph “e-mail of the day” postings as some sort of blog entry, as if anyone is unaware that such instances make up a good portion of the “so-and-so many words have been published on this blog in X months” during the pledge drives. No, you’re not fooling anyone, Andrew. And, no, it doesn’t make me an anti-gay bigot to point that out.
Comment by Ricky — 5/17/2005 @ 6:04 pm
I used to read Sullivan regularly. Then Bush came out in favor of the smendment to protect marriage. Boom. Sully’s opinion of Bush changed dramatically. NOTHING Bush — or the Bush Administration — did was acceptable. Anything that reduced Bush — including unsourced rumor — was presented as Holy Gospel. He also gives that same treatment to every public figure that opposes gay marriage. As an experiment, come out with a few blog posts opposing it. Pretty soon you will end up getting the John Derbyshire “public enemy” treatement from Sullivan. It got tiring quickly. I finally stopped reading Sullivan when he came out in favor of John Kerry — arguing that Kerry would be tougher on the WOT than Bush. Of course, Sullivan argued that Kerry was opposed to GM, too, ignoring folks that pointed out that JFK opposed GM the same way he opposed abortion — that is to say that JFK was personally opposed, but if the courts said it was OK, then, by golly, your hands were tied. Gay marriage is a religion to Sullivan, and Sullivan one of its priests. Austin, I am pretty sure that you read H. Beam Piper — just based on your fiction. If so, remember what H. Beam Piper said about arguing religion with a priest.
Comment by Mark L — 5/17/2005 @ 6:08 pm
#20 said: Gay marriage is a religion to Sullivan, and Sullivan one of its priests. Austin, I am pretty sure that you read H. Beam Piper – just based on your fiction. If so, remember what H. Beam Piper said about arguing religion with a priest. Yeah, yet I suppose you believe arguing with The Religous Right, however, is a piece of logical cake… I might be wrong, but Abu Ghraib broke before Bush came out in favor of DOMA. Sullivan wasn’t exactly a Bush fan *then*, so it’s a bit unfair (but typical) to blame all of this on the importance of the issue of gay marriage. It tickles me, furhermore, that the Far Right Blogosphere seems to dismiss Sullivan simply by calling him a one-trick pony (which isn’t true in any event). So what? Can I dismiss the Pro Lifers as “one-trick ponies” in a like manner? If the issue is important to you, of *course* it’s going to color many of your political beliefs. To think otherwise is assinine. MLK was a one-trick pony, too. If we had blogs 40 years ago most of you would be going on about “all this blather about ‘Civil Rights’!!!! Enough already, Martin. We get it. Racial equality is important to you. Sheesh. Move on!!!”
Comment by Hank — 5/17/2005 @ 6:49 pm
Bush told Diane Sawyer that he supported the FMA in December 2003. CBS broke the Abu Ghraib story in April 2004. So, the anti-Bush/war folks were the equivalent of a fifth-column back in December 2003, suddenly Bush was at fault and John Kerry was the “conservative choice” beginning around May 2004. Not that difficult to do the math, Hank, even taking into account comparisons with MLK (I like Sully but…..please).
Comment by Ricky — 5/17/2005 @ 7:04 pm
So many bloggers have asserted that the Newsweek article provoked the murderous actions of the Islamic militants. I have a question - Something that I just thought of, regarding this issue: Ever since 9/11, whenever conservative, libertarian, or liberal commentators have asserted that actions and policies by our elected officials in Washington helped motivate terrorist attacks against our nation, they have frequently been characterized as those who “blame America first” for terrorist attacks, and are accused of believing that we deserved to be attacked. They are accused of hating our nation. (Lew Rockwell addressed this claim here, and I gave my perspective about this issue here.) So as per a broader understanding of the aforementioned axiom, those who believe that actions of American leaders can provide a motivation for violence and terrorism, and that some of those actions may be wrong, are in essence blaming America as a whole, and these “haters” may even be saying that the victims of said acts deserve to be victimized. But if that is the case - if it is not reasonably acceptable to assert that actions or words of Americans can motivate violent acts by foreign Islamic militants, and that said provocations were wrong - then how can it be considered acceptable to assert that actions or words by American public figures - actions which are wrong - motivated acts of violence and terrorism? A possible response to my question could be that one action was done by a public elected official, and another action was done by a private organization. But the fact is, some actions by those in Washington (such as Clinton’s 1998 bombings of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan - which even David Horowitz said were not only wrong, but also fueled anger and hatred in the Muslim world) are done unilaterally, and under questionable circumstances, without the consent or approval (or sometimes, even the foreknowledge) of the American public. And many of those who hold to the aforementioned belief also believe that those who claim that non-governmental characteristics of our nation, or actions by Americans not within Washington, motivated the terrorist attacks are also “blaming America.” But aside from that, there is the overall logic of the aforementioned axiom - Some of those who belive in it have claimed that to suggest the concept of “provoking terrorism” is equivalent to suggesting the concept of “provoking rape.” If this is true, then how can people now assert that the Newsweek magazine article provoked or motivated the terrorism in Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of innocent people? Please let me know what you think.
Comment by Aakash — 5/17/2005 @ 8:50 pm
Andrew Sullivan believes the anti-Islamic treatment of prisoners is abusive, heinous, and possibly torture. Where would he draw that line? If the US military disrespected Islam and the Koran by telling the prisoners that homosexuality was not a sin, or showed them news clips of gay weddings– would that be prisoner abuse? Buster Bunny and Sponge Bob starred in tolerance videos aimed at US school children. If these were shown to Islamic fundamentalist prisoners, would it have been anti-Islamic prisoner abuse? I just wonder at what point not respecting the Koran and its teachings goes from being simply disrespectful to abusive, in Andrew’s eyes.
Comment by o — 5/17/2005 @ 10:39 pm